Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Matthew Knepley wrote: >> >> > > In the long term - Barry wants to get rid of next.. >> > >> > >> > 1) I think next really prevents master from getting screwed up (witness >> > next) >> > >> > 2) I think we are actually finding interaction bugs there. >> > >> > Are those points wrong, or is there another way to do these things? >> >> Next is an intergration testing mechanism. The prerequisite for it [I >> think] is - one should test the branch properly before merging to >> next. However we are not doing proper testing before merge to next - >> and relying on next to do this part aswell. >> >> So with current next - it one has to figure out which branches are >> breaking the tests [takes time - which most of us are not doing] - and >> then hope it gets fixed quickly. Otherwise next stay broken for a long >> time [and other branches in next - which could be clean - don't >> receive sufficient confidence to graduate to master] >> >> So Barry's thought wrt getting next is to have a better way of testing >> feature branch one wants to test (i.e master+feature). Its not clear >> to me how many integration issues we've addressed with our current >> next model. [Its mostly been indvidual branch issues] >> >> Also if feature-1 and feature-2 are feature branches that are tested >> in next [wrt integration]. The following should be equivalent to >> testing 'master + feature1 + feature2' - aka current next model: >> >> 1. test master+feature1 >> 2. success => merge feature1 to master >> 3. tets master+ feature2 >> 3. success => merge feature2 to master >> >> Note: my next-tmp is an attempt to get closer to 'master+feature1' >> testing from 'master+feature1+feature2' testing [yeah - its more like >> master+2/3 branches in next-tmp vs master+10/15 branches in next.] >> >> Also I'm restarting next-tmp from a clean master when merging new set >> of branches to test. And throwing away branches with problems - and >> retest only after it has fixes [This way a broken branch does not keep >> next-tmp broken until it gets fixed.] > > > I don't think we have the resources to run full tests on every branch one > at a time. Do we?
No, and after each merge of a branch to 'master', the prospective merge of other branches would need to be retested. But the idea that the automated test suite is infallible is also flawed.
